my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Tom Cruise urges viewers to disable motion smoothing TVs (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Tom Cruise urges viewers to disable motion smoothing TVs David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-20-2018 09:48 PM                        Having not thought much about this soap opera effect issue in a long time, the Tom Cruise story prompted me to try changing the "motion smoothing" settings on both my TVs from "Low" to "Off". I definitely prefer it off. Kind of feel dumb for not doing this from Day 1. I guess like most consumers I want to believe the TV manufacturers always know what's best for everyone. HFR for Hobbit was a distracting abomination. Based on what I saw I would never seek out an HFR presentation. Kind of like the local LieMax screen is dead to me because it's always an unpleasant aural assault.  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 02-16-2019 01:36 AM                     quote: David Stambaugh I guess like most consumers I want to believe the TV manufacturers always know what's best for everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth- the default settings on most TVs is so wrong it's not even funny. The only practical use for that would be for an intelligence test- if you're interviewing someone for a job, have a TV there with everything at the default settings and make your candidate adjust it properly. It's disgusting that this "feature" is in nearly every TV out there and turned on by default, yet the industry has killed 3D which will render about 500 movies in my collection unwatchable on future screens. (Incidentally the last Mission Impossible was released in converted 3D but there is no 3D Blu-Ray available, so I simply won't be buying or watching it.)  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-05-2019 02:11 AM                        Why isn't it called jitter instead of judder? Why did the video world need to make up a new name for something that already exists? Did they just slame jitter and studder together to get judder?  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 03-05-2019 02:49 AM                     There is a difference between "jitter" and "judder", no matter what field you apply to it. Jitter contains a random factor. For example, aligning the frame to the gate always contains a bit of a random factor, simply due to mechanical constrains. The maximum amount it can differ from the norm can be a quantifiable number, but how much it differs in each direction per projected frame is generally unpredictable. Jitter is also often used in telecommunications, especially on so called packetized networks like the Internet. If you send a bunch of packets to me, due to how the internet works, there will be a variation in latency between the packets. This variation is jitter. Jitter is especially problematic in real-time applications, like Voice and Video over IP. Jitter is much like a random vibration. Judder is probably a less defined term, and maybe in this context not even entirely correct. It's not an artifact with a random background though. Judder is traditionally being used to describe the motion artifacts of the 3:2 pulldown necessary for the conversion between 24 and 30fps for broadcast on 60Hz systems. I'm using it to name the obvious artifacts you get from a relatively low frame rate on certain scenes. Although the cause is not the same, the look is somewhat similar, hence I'm calling it "judder". It's especially the artifact, where the fluency of the motion breaks up and the individual frames start to become apparent. This primarily happens in faster panning shots. Most motion compensation fixes this artifact pretty well, but it also introduces the dreaded soap-opera look. If I have to choose between the occasional "judder" and soap-opera look, I'll go for the first one. If there is a better term than judder for this (there probably is), then I'm all ears.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.